The fictitious reality

Sir, Whatever u told, I agree with only but only to an extent, not everything. If we look the actual scene/ circumstances and also the previous episode (test match before Oval one), then perhaps we can better arbiter. Judging by the past history of both Billy Doctrove and Darell Hair, inarguably, they have shown biased decision all against Asian nations. History testifies that. Throughout his umpiring career, Hair has been a controversial figure. The majority of the prominent incidents have involved Asian nations, leading to accusations of bias. In the previous test match number of faulty decisions like 1) Andrew staruss scored 116runs... was given not out twice by the racist umpire, at the time his score was less than 35runs,.Peterson nipps back the ball to keeper, Kamran Akmal by good length ball by Shahid Nazir when he was on score 32, but given not out by umpire. Peterson scored 135 runs, although he was out when he was on score 0 by a beautiful delivery by Mohammad Sami. Danish kaneria lbw collingwood twice, decison against Pakistan favour. Likewise there were 7-8 wrong decisions gone against Pakistan, before this disrepute Oval Test match. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibiCasJP68&feature=related And as expected, the same streak had to continue in the Oval match as well, and that is what happened. Whatever Inzy had done, by going out of field, was correct thing................ before tea time umpire asked for replacement of ball. Inzamam questioned the decision of the umpire, to which umpire told that Inzy can look over the tampered ball in the referee’s room only and not on the field, that moment. After tea time was over, Pakistan team refused to come on field after seing that the ball was not tampered and refused to uphold the decision of the umpire. Also, spoke explicitly to media of the biased of umpire’s decision.. Although, coz of bringing the game to disrepute, and not because of tampering with the ball, Inzy was fined for 4 ODI matches. Equal punishment should be meted to umpire as well. But the adamant umpire, who had the back up from MCC, wrote letter to ICC, thinking that the decision will come to his favour. Although it did come finally to his favour on 1 February 2009 when the ICC reversed their earlier decision, and changed the match result back to a win for England ,all because of complying certain rules under which (MCC) released the statement "The ICC has no power under the laws of cricket to decide that results should be altered, whether it feels it's ‘inappropriate’ or otherwise”. ICC retort back to his letter,"He shall not be allowed to officiate in any future international games until the end of this contract [which ends in March 2008]", Percy Sonn, ICC President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tElRT_RlrNU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqWYSXz7Yfw&feature=related Hair had stated that the sum of US$500,000 was to be compensation for the four or more years he would have umpired for had this controversy not happened, which he claimed would be "the best years he had to offer international umpiring". Hair had previously suggested, however, in an April 2006 interview that he might give up umpiring at the end of the World Cup saying "I'm not so sure that after another 12 months I'll have the passion to keep enjoying it."
An important Law of cricket says that An Umpire shall be in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Code if he is found to have engaged in any of the following conduct and the penalties to be considered are the same as those set out in Clause C4 of the Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials : One of them was as follows:
· Was a party to contriving or attempting to contrive the result of any Match or the occurrence of any Event;
Few other worth noting points regarding this:
· It shall be an implied condition in any contract, agreement, understanding or arrangement involving a Cricket Authority or a Home Board and an Umpire that the provisions of the Code shall be binding on such an Umpire and that his acceptance of an appointment to stand as an Umpire in any Test Match or ODI or to be a member of the international panel of Umpires established by ICC shall constitute his acceptance of his obligation to be bound by and his undertaking, directly with ICC as well as with the Home Board, to observe at all times the provisions of the Code.
· If there shall be any conflict between the provisions of the Code and the provisions of any code of conduct or similar regulation issued by any Cricket Authority, the provisions of the Code shall prevail and shall override any such code of conduct.
Thus, in any case, ICC carry authoritative rights to terminate the services of the Umpire on the reason as it may feel appropriate, and the umpire is binding on that decision.
Umpire's decisionAn umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.
On enquiry from Inzy of the state of tampered ball, if the umpire had shown the condition of the ball then and there, probably umpire can alter his decision of granting 5runs to England. But the racist umpire asked Inzy to see the tampered ball in referee’s room.
Umpires awarding a match(a) A match shall be lost by a side whicheither (i) concedes defeator (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to playand the umpires shall award the match to the other side.
(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.
Even despite the above rules, flexibility of such rules has been seen time and again in the history of cricket. So, when Inzy returned to field 25 minutes later, 55 minutes after the umpires first took to the field for a resumption of play, but by then it was Hair and Doctrove themselves who refused to continue the game stating that the game had already ended with a Pakistani forfeiture the moment the bails were removed, even though both teams were willing to continue the match i.e. 55 min. after the tea time, umpire could have resumed the play.